Bob,
Just wanted to ask, plead, beg for more information on that stored
procedures tag. I also use SPs extensively and would really appreciate
anything that's been developed for automating development with these!
So, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE would you be willing to share/hint at/anything this
code?
Thanks!
Derek Hamilton
Systems Developer
Digital Gear
on 3/23/01 1:11 PM, the esteemed Bob Silverberg at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
postulated:
> I've been following this thread with interest (and a few laughs), so I'll
> throw in my 2 cents.
>
> I developed a couple of small web sites with Fusebox based on info that I
> gleaned from fusebox.org, and I really liked it. The next project I had to
> tackle was a major web application. Not a web site, but a full-blown
> business application that was previously written in VB. We had to redevelop
> it with a lot of new functionality and deliver it with a browser-based
> interface. There are two components - an intranet that is used for a lot of
> administration tasks and an extranet that partners use to interact with the
> system.
>
> So the system is about 90% data processing and about 10% presentation (as
> opposed to most web sites). I spent a few days trying to figure out how to
> build such a complex system using fusebox, and I came up with a solution
> that is (I believe) very similar to XFB (although I have to admin that I
> haven't read the info on Hal's site yet). maybe I'm just dense, but I found
> that moving to a hierarchical circuit app design made it much easier for me
> to understand and implement.
>
> So that's my take on XFB (or what I understand XFB to be).
>
> Now, onto the attributes scope. I found that having a common scope that all
> of my form and url variables were put into, and into which I could add my
> own variables, allowed me to write a routine that has saved me dozens, if
> not hundreds of hours. Due to the nature of the site, I have written dozens
> of stored procedures. Stored procedures are used for all data manipulation
> and extraction. In the past I have had to write a call to each stored
> procedure (either using CFQUERY or CFSTOREDPROC), but using the attributes
> scope I was able to write one routine that would basically take anything
> that was placed in the attributes scope, and that was expected by the stored
> procedure, and would dynamically build the call. Although the app requires
> easily over a hundred different calls to stored procedures, I haven't had to
> write a single one.
>
> Now, I could use any scope for that, it doesn't have to be "attributes", but
> I do find that a common scope, to which everything is "automatically" added
> is incredibly useful.
>
> One other thing that comes to mind about simply using the variables scope
> for everything, rather than attributes or another "made up" scope (using a
> structure) is that I commonly use a variation on the CF_REUSEFORM tag, which
> depends on there being values in two different scopes, "variables" and
> "attributes". If I was to use the "variables" scope to replace the
> "attributes" scope I'd have to rethink the way this tag is being used (which
> might not be such a bad thing, but hey the tag works pretty well).
>
> Have a great weekend,
> Bob
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger B. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: March 23, 2001 2:48 PM
> To: Fusebox
> Subject: RE: Musings on Attributes (was Best Practices...)
>
>
>> I have to be honest here... I'm not convinced of the nested Fuseboxes.
>
> Steve,
>
> Same here... the whole XFB nesting thing strikes me as a beautiful mess that
> solves a non-problem. Custom tags are a fundamental part of CF, and to me,
> they have always seemed the cleanest, most natural way of calling another
> 'box.
>
>
> --
> Roger
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
